upvote

points

by jadengeller22 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby airstrike21 hours ago|
next
[-]
These days I mainly write Rust but I did write a semi complex iOS app and enjoyed Swift. I just didn't love how slow the type checker was and how it got lost. I recall having to break things into smaller bits to help the compiler, and there were some oddities about the language.

The gap between the two languages is quite small, it just makes me wish Apple was also all-in on Rust

reply
upvoteby geodel4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Apple is not going bet all on language whose roadmap they do not control 100%.
reply
upvoteby MBCook20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In the last year they’ve added improvements to the type checker to speed it up, those would have been released now.

They have further and much more significant changes that I think might have recently landed in the development version. That should make an even bigger difference. But it’s not in a released version yet.

And yes, none of us like that one part of Swift. Especially the DRASTIC difference compared to objective-C which really only checked syntax and little else.

It’s still probably my favorite language right now though I don’t get to write in it much.

reply
upvoteby DenisChetwynd21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
maybe so on the surface, but it remains quite massive underneath; these languages are fundamentally different and target entirely different use cases
reply
upvoteby airstrike19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not sure Rust has one specific use case as its main goal, despite being immediately suitable for systems programming.

I use it for making user-facing desktop applications, to name one example.

reply
upvoteby inkyoto14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I see Swift as a more approachable version of Rust.

If somebody is mulling over Rust but finds it too difficult to grasp, they could start off with Swift first and then move over to Rust.

One of the main advantages of Rust is a more developed and thriving ecosystem.

reply
upvoteby stasomatic19 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
It has an unfortunate name though, maybe a short shelf life. Rust++ doesn’t seem inviting either.
reply
upvoteby steveklabnik8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Rust does not have a ++ operator, so that name would make no sense.
reply
upvoteby ecshafer21 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Swift and Rust were developed at similar times. I think of them more as having similar influences than borrowing from each other.
reply
upvoteby pohl18 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There’s no reason to invent your own head canon, the influence was openly acknowledged when Swift was new and it continues now that the language is developed out in the open (see Swift Ownership Manifesto)
reply
upvoteby zarzavat16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Obviously Rust was first but over time both languages have been taking inspiration from each other. For example let-else was motivated directly because of its success in Swift: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3137-let-else.html#prior-ar...
reply
upvoteby pjmlp12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Additionally both have influences from CLU, C++, Object Pascal, Modula-2, Mesa/Cedar, Standard ML, Cyclone.

Many features that get discussed as being Swift/Rust, trace back to one of those languages.

reply
upvoteby est3121 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Similar times and the Rust originator went on to work on Swift after it.
reply
upvoteby DenisChetwynd21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Graydon Hoare's impact on the language is marginal than that of Chris Lattner, the originator (also, Hoare joined the team much later)
reply
upvoteby vardump21 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Does it borrow borrow checker?
reply
upvoteby tialaramex20 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I believe Swift tends to use reference counting and copy-on-write strategies. This, like GC, is less for the programmer to think about and doesn't require the semantic checks, but sometimes the performance cost is unacceptable compared to what you'd write in Rust.
reply
upvoteby airspeedswift20 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You can choose to use either refcounting or unique ownership for your types. For most use cases, refcounted (+ copy-on-write) is the best choice and is the default, but the truetype interpreter made extensive use of non-refcounted types to achieve this performance.
reply
upvoteby pjmlp12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can pick and chose, and memory ownership is getting better in latest versions.

Being more ergonomic is relevant enough for increasing language adoption, that possible improvements are now on Rust roadmap.

reply
upvoteby MBCook20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
They have either recently added or talked about a borrow style system in the language as a way to avoid more copies and speed things up/lower memory usage/help with asynchronous programming.
reply
upvoteby 21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby anextio20 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, it has a borrow checker.
reply